This is one of my most vivid childhood memories. I was 12 when Charles and Diana got married. We were visiting family friends and everyone was sitting around the TV watching the wedding. I pointed out to everyone immediately that she got his name mixed up.
Interesting point. “George” is the most recent new entrant to this list (George I, 1714), and that only happened because, when he was christened, nobody had the remotest idea that he would one day reign in Britain; the events which were to bring him to the throne were not then foreseeable.
The previous new entrant to the list was “Charles”(Charles I, 1625) and he only came to the throne because of the death of his elder brother, who was christened Henry.
The number is part of the name, and is included in the accession proclamation.
There was some fuss over Elizabeth II being so named because a previous Elizabetth had reigned in England, while none had reigned in Scotland. By the time objections were raised she had already been proclaimed as Elizabeth II but, since the crown is the fount of honours there was in principle nothing to stop the issue of a new proclamation varying this. That wasn’t done, of course. I believe the solution, or possibly rationalisation, adopted was that the monarch should have whichever post-nominal number would be higher as between the English and Scottish lines of succession, so a hypothetical future King James would be James VIII, while a Henry would be Henry IX.
A long, unpleasant civil war, perhaps.
Mary, Matilda, Maude, and Jane are probably also out.
Well, maybe not Mary.
Yes, I know that under the current law he would officially be David III throughout the UK, but what I’m saying is that that could easily be semi-officially ignored, or officially changed with a simple majority in parliament.
As it happens, I’ve seen 2 postboxes this morning with GR on them. They presumably mean George V but it shows the number isn’t required even in the current setup.
So much will be different from when the Queen ascended to the throne. Who knows, Australia, Jamaica etc could begin their own naming systems. More to the point, they may decide that if Charles wants to be head of state, he needs to physically attend a separate coronation in Canberra, Kingston or wherever.
George V was the first George to be monarch in the era of pillar boxes. And if memory serves, his badge/device/monogram/whatever-the-heraldic-term-is was simply GR for all purposes. Whereas his father had EVIIR, and both his sons included the number.
In the end that much comes down to what the new monarch, on advice, approves.
As for references in text, that’s just custom and practice in any given context.
If the British still [del]owned[/del] leased a slice of China we could Stand Hong with Kong.
Well, Albino Luciani had more or less the same idea. He didn’t enjoy the new name for long, however…
Or he could go back even further than that.
I say, go with Ida. It has historical precedent, and also makes him sound like your sweet elderly auntie.
The only place I’ve ever heard of this jinx is on this board. There’s no issue with the name Charles - Charles II was a popular King who reigned at the time of the Enlightenment. So he shagged around a bit - well, so did Edward VII (also a popular King). Nobody cares.
Charles I was clearly a disaster - but there’s plenty of Henrys and Edwards and Georges who’ve been awful, and we don’t have a problem with those names.
If Charles was an issue, our present Queen wouldn’t have chosen it.
Prince Charles has now been around for so long in the public consciousness that it would be really odd if he changed his name.
In my heart I would love a King Arthur.
Or more likely, they’ll dispense with the monarchy altogether and find one of their own to be Head of State. I don’t think anyone seriously expects the next monarch will retain all the Crown States.
Emphasis added
This case settled the issue of whether Elizabeth was II in Scotland, even though Elizabeth I wasn’t Queen of Scotland in her time. Charles can pick regnal number “pi” if he’s so inclined, and no one has any standing to contest it. “Royal prerogative.”